Reference no: EM132265777

Introduction:

Gaming: regulation, violence, addiction, gender stereotyping, educational games, etc.

I chose this topic because there is a lot of scrutiny over ethical issues that involve gaming. Video games have been questioned if they cause violence, early smoking, drinking, and drug habits. Not only does ethics play into the user but also the producer. Whether it involves there freedom of expression and speech.

But, it's not easy to make judgments on the impact of games on a culture or audience. Game designers have the right to make fun games that also have violence involved. But the designers also worry that games are following too much violence and sex-laden formula that movies also do. With games, movies, and music both containing this format then it could possibly cause an impact.

Answer to C1, Q1:

Are video games a form of speech, and if so, do they come under the protection of the right to free speech?

Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association has made its way to the supreme court in 2011 , ever since the assembly bill 1179 in california from 2005.

This bill regulates the sale of violent video games. Video game companies immediately challenged the bill. The Supreme court agreed that video games will be afforded the same first amendment protected like any other media. States can regulate sex, but they can not regulate violence.

Kids are already exposed to violent children books such as, ‘Grimms Fairy Tales' and ‘Lord of the Flies'. Since most states have failed to regulate movies, music, and comic books, then why would video games be. Video Games are rated, and most stores use that rating to determine if the minor can buy that game.

Answer to C1, Q2:

Some players and developers argue that video games are better at teaching logic and problem solving skills than many school curriculums. And undeniably, video games bring players pleasure. How would we weigh these benefits against the potential harms that have been attributed to games, such as addiction, gender stereotyping, and the promotion of violence?

There are five ways that video games can improve you problem solving skills; Learning from your mistakes, practicing, trying different things, learning to give up, and the variety of problem and solutions. You constantly constantlyanalyse yourself while playing video games. The more diverse the game is, the better it will be for your problem solving and creativity. But, this doesn't mean you can play games all day and not need any other stimulation.

Evidence is mounting that there are problematic effects from violent video game usage. An authoritative review in 2015 by the American Psychiatric Association found "a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive affect and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and sensitivity to aggression." However, research is conclusive that the average gamer is not going to be violent ,it is just an elevated risk. Other factors play a role in violent behavior such as bullying, childhood experiences, frustration, poverty, personal and social stresses, and external events and situations that bring hostile ideas to mind.

In my opinion video games have a benefit, but it only outweighs the negative if it is regulated. When a minors majority time is spent in a virtual universe the impact on their development is significant. Users can have a decrease in empathy, and also experience isolation. I do not think the benefits outweigh the risks if the user is playing all the time, however, I do think if the user plays periodically then the risk is lower.

Answer to C1, Q3:

What effect does video gaming have on the community? At what point does the hours you play a game in a week interfere with the person's obligations to their family and daily life? Is gaming an asocial activity, or does it involve players in a different kind of community?

Most studies nowadays consider that about 30-40 min of game play every day may be the ideal schedule. From what we know of learning and brain plasticity, more would not be better and it could even be worse. The fear that the number of hours spent playing video games is the number of hours being taken away from other social activities.

An adolescent has obligations throughout their days. This can include chores, homework, and family time. If the player decides to play video games instead of studying, this will directly affect school grades. However, it is not only children that are affected by playing too much video games. Video games have believe it or not destroyed marriages.

Conclusion:

Games have steadily increased in popularity the last two decades. Playing games now rival movies and TV-shows as home entertainment, and the trend does not appear to be declining. It has just as long been commonly considered a waste of time playing games.

Digital games in general have often been attributed to having an anti-social effect on its players, and violent games being particularly bad due to a preconceived notion that lead to violent behavior. School shootings in the USA are often, at least partially, blamed on violent games, allegedly having influenced the perpetrator into committing the crimes. Empirical studies differ greatly, and although many of them point toward a strong link between playing violent games and increased aggression ( Anderson& Bushman, 2001) The moral question on playing violent games is raised in an interesting way by McCormick (2001).

He attempts to investigate whether or not there are grounds for morally condemning playing violent games in general, and arrive at the conclusion that utilitarianism and Kantianism provide no such grounds, and that they would deem playing violent games morally permissible. However, McCormick claims that the playing of violent games can be morally condemned in general on the basis of Aristotelian virtue ethics, because of the bad effects simulated violence has on the player's moral character.

Utilitarian defense of violent games is twofold, saying that there are insufficient studies showing that playing violent games causally increases risk, and even if this causal relation did exist the utilitarian would have to also morally condemn other risk increasing activities that we commonly engage in. I believe that violent games, academics experience an additional pressure from society to publish articles which support, and justify, the moral panic on violent games prevalent today. The 7 school shootings in America play a big role in the feeding and maintaining of this panic, and it is my belief that society at large prefer a scapegoat to take the blame for the tragic incidents.

Every new article published supporting the causality between playing violent games and committing actual violent acts, further marks these games as the culprit. Perhaps, blaming violent games for being the cause for teenagers and young adults committing these acts, alleviates some guilt with the parents and schools involved.They are responsible for the education and upbringing of these young people, but by blaming violent games they avoid having to take responsibility for their behavior.

Whatever the reason, I think society wants a scapegoat for the shootings, and this encourages publication bias with studies on the effects of playing violent games. Firing a gun at a character in a game often leads to the character in question falling to the ground. Sometimes the character just quickly fades out, but sometimes it remains, wringing in agony and calling out in pain, before it eventually dies.

McCormick is right in asserting that the character does not actually feel any pain, and the player killing it does not actually violate her duty towards any actual human being in the act. However, it looks like the character is in pain. Could that in fact be enough to affect her, possibly developing a character with an increased risk of harming actual human beings? I think so. A photograph of a person does not react painfully to me throwing it on the ground, or burning it, making it a different matter than a character in a game. With this, the analogy between a controlled avatar and a human being becomes less superficial, indicating that there possibly is something wrong with behaving cruelly towards a character in a game.

In summary, the Kantian defense of playing violent games is limited, but holding. Mostly, the debate on the Kantian approach to the subject is directed toward what kind of social behavior that is morally permissible between players in a multiplayer game, missing the point on whether it is morally permissible to play games at all, violent or not. It is also argued that we should not engage in simulated violence toward controlled avatars, these often representing and resembling human beings, which may lead to an increased risk of harming actual human beings. However, as there is no established causal connection between performing simulated violence within a game and performing actual violence toward real human beings, playing violent games cannot be morally condemned on a Kantian account.

First, we could question the form of utilitarianism that McCormick employs in his argumentation, that an act is good if it benefits people overall, and bad if it harms people overall. This is different from the traditional form of the theory, which states that an act is right if, and only if, it yields the best consequences. Using this more traditional form of utilitarianism may have different results, such as playing violent games always is wrong, because the time spent on playing these games can always be better, spent elsewhere. We do not know for certain whether or not playing violent games is harmful, or to what degree players are negatively affected if it is. However, we do know that there is a risk that it indeed is harmful, one way or another.

It could be that some people are negatively affected by playing violent games, and even if it only is one out of a hundred, this risk could be considered sufficiently significant to morally condemn the playing of violent games in general, on rule-utilitarian grounds. Also, video games are a form of art, just like movies and music. Video producers should be able to make their games however they choose. It is the responsibility of the guardians to monitor how much and what ratings of games are appropriate.

References

Anaya and Bavelier D (2013) Ever Wondered What Playing Video Games Does to Your Brain?. Front. Young Minds.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. 2001. Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Effect, Physiological Arousal and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 12, 353-359.

Are Video Games Addictive? (n.d.).

McCormick, M. 2001. Is It Wrong to Play Violent Video Games? Ethics and Information Technology, 3, 277-287.

Santa Clara University. (n.d.). Unavoidable Ethical Questions about Video Gaming.

Takahashi, Dean. "Ethics of Game Design." Gamasutra - Ethics Of Game Design. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2019.